NewTradingView.com – Investing and Stock News
Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Economy

Risk Analysis for Children’s Health

by August 26, 2022
written by August 26, 2022

The federal government officially embraced risk assessment in 1983 with publication of Risk Assessment in the Federal Government, followed by the use of cost-benefit analysis with President Carter’s Executive Order in 1978 (EO 12044). Despite their long use, there are hints that at least two federal agencies, the FDA and EPA, may be making public health decisions without using these analyses. 

The FDA, in its plan called Closer to Zero, is responding to the fact “that Americans want zero toxic elements in the foods eaten by their babies and young children. Recognizing that it is impossible to get to zero for lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury, the FDA is pushing to get as close to zero exposure as possible. 

Meanwhile, the EPA is using an extremely conservative safety analysis for four PFAS synthetic chemicals used in a “broad range of industries since the 1940s.” The PFAS Health Advisory, which is neither enforceable nor a regulatory decision (yet), is based on a decision management tool called “safety analysis.” Safety assessments were developed by the FDA for pre-approving chemicals before they could be sold for food additives (1958) at about the same time that the World Health Organization adopted their own safety assessments for preapproving pesticides (1954).

Unlike risk assessment, safety analyses start with finding the lowest possible level of exposure that either has very little harm, or no harm, and then divides by “uncertainty factors” to find an exposure level that is a hundred or a thousand times lower – where there is “no appreciable risk to human health.” The uncertainty factors are partially scientific, but some are actually arbitrary. The resulting level of risk concern (as opposed to estimating an actual risk) for one of the PFAS chemicals (PFOA) was listed at four parts per quadrillion, which is comparable to one drop of water in 20,000 Olympic-sized pools.

Both getting as close to zero as possible and using a conservative analysis of a safety level are risk management decisions. Both ignore cost-benefit analysis.

That gets to a pretty safe level for PFAS chemicals and for FDA’s chemicals in food so that we might ask the question: Is there anything wrong with that, particularly for children?

Many risk analysts might answer, “Maybe.” Here’s why.

Risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses can be valuable aids to rational decision making for health hazards. With respect to regulating chemicals, these two analyses answer the questions: 1) At different levels of exposure to these chemicals, what is the risk? and, 2) How much would it cost to lower the exposure to those chemicals, i.e., reduce the risk? 

Actual risk assessments answer the question, “What is the risk at a certain level of exposure?” Neither FDA’s Closer to Zero, nor EPA’s PFAS safety analysis answers that question. 

A true risk assessment might show that any of these chemicals have a “threshold,” a level below which no harm is likely to occur. The EPA does list thresholds for other chemicals, including criteria pollutants covered under the Clean Air Act, which also includes risks to children. The FDA lists thresholds for packaging chemicals, allergens and other compounds. 

There may also be hormetic (beneficial) effects at levels below the threshold of some for the compounds, (e.g., methylmercury, cadmium and PFAS). 

The second question is the cost-benefit question: How much will it cost to lower the risks from these chemicals? With nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population drinking water with some level of PFAS, just one county, Orange County, CA, found that the cost of the infrastructure needed to reduce PFAS levels was “at least $1 billion.”

That brings us to the “better safe than sorry” standard that, even for children’s risks, may not be the right one. The economist’s definition of cost is “opportunity cost,” i.e., the missed opportunity to spend those resources elsewhere. Where might the billions or trillions of dollars have been spent to reduce risks to children? The same is true of expenditures to get some chemicals to zero risk. If there is no risk, i.e., the risk is below a threshold for harm, then there is no benefit and the additional funds to reduce risk would be better spent elsewhere. 

Some possible expenditures include buying more infant formula or checking to make sure that imported formula is safe. Another possibility is to help children avoid obesity and diabetes, problems that have been growing recently. By the time children reach ages 6 to 11, one in five is obese. Maybe, as the CDC reports, resources should be used to address unintentional injuries or assaults, a leading cause of death in small children.

In fact, given that the benefits to children from lowering exposure to any of the FDA or EPA chemicals may be negligible to non-existent, we would likely be better off addressing more serious concerns for children.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Priest by Day, Hedge Fund CIO by night – Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson of Lemelson Capital
next post
Consumer Sentiment Improved in August but Remains Low

You may also like

China: House Divided

January 31, 2023

Markets Aid Rhino Survival

January 31, 2023

Garet Garrett, the Great

January 30, 2023

Headline Inflation Falls, But Core Inflation Remains Elevated

January 30, 2023

Choosing to Remain in the Global Market Economy

January 29, 2023

Four Ways to Get What You Want

January 28, 2023

But Who Will Build the Roads: A Parable

January 27, 2023

How Two Corn Cobs Upended A Foreign Aid...

January 27, 2023

4th Quarter 2022 GDP Shows Growth, but Deteriorating...

January 27, 2023

What Accounts for All This Stuff?

January 26, 2023
Enter Your Information Below To Receive Free Trading Ideas, Latest News, And Articles.


Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!

Popular Posts

  • 1

    My Trigger to Enter $VAPR

  • 2

    Scaling Up Tips From A 24-Year Old Millionaire Trader {VIDEO}

  • 3

    Multi-Millionaire Trader Explains Why You Should Start Trading With A Small Account {VIDEO}

  • 4

    Pay Attention to These Stocks

  • 5

    New ‘Hunger Winter’ Looms as Europe Prepares to Shiver

Recent Posts

  • Employment cost index undershoots expectations; Labour costs likely peaked

    January 31, 2023
  • Key wage inflation measure eases in Q4: don’t be ‘too bullish’ on stocks

    January 31, 2023
  • China: House Divided

    January 31, 2023
  • Markets Aid Rhino Survival

    January 31, 2023
  • Weekly markets TL;DR: Massive week ahead for stocks, crypto and forex

    January 31, 2023

Categories

  • Economy (600)
  • Editor's Pick (232)
  • Investing (1,586)
  • Stock (9)
  • About Us
  • Email Whitelisting
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contacts

Disclaimer: NewTradingView.com, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.


Copyright © 2023 NewTradingView.com All Rights Reserved.


Back To Top
NewTradingView.com – Investing and Stock News
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick